Mozambique
Answer ... According to articles 449 and 118 of the Criminal Code (CP), there can be special reduction of the imposed penalty when the perpetrator shows remorse (namely, by compensating as much damage as possible, as per article 118 of the CP) or contributes to gathering evidence decisive in revealing the truth (article 449 of the CP). The spontaneous confession of the crime, as well as the discovery of its other perpetrators and instruments, when revealed to the authorities and as long as it is useful and true information, are considered mitigating circumstances, as per article 45 of the CP.
The penalty can also be altogether dismissed if the perpetrator, prior to the execution of the promised act, refuses or returns whatever advantage they had received in return (article 449 of the CP). It is, however, unclear whether legal persons can benefit from leniency on the same basis as individuals do.
Article 39 of Law 9/87 (which alters and republishes the Law on Anti-Economic Crimes and Law on the Defence of the Economy) also states the whistle-blower may receive 10% of apprehended assets, as well as have priority access, should he wish to buy them (it is not specified whether a perpetrator can also be a whistle-blower).
Mozambique
Answer ... No specific rule in the Mozambican legal system excludes liability of legal persons based on the mere existence of anti-corruption programs or mechanisms.
For example, article 6 of Law 6/2004 (Which Combats the Crimes of Corruption and Unlawful Economic Participation) states that in all contracts to which the State (or other public entity) is a party the inclusion of an anti-corruption clause is mandatory.
However, and in keeping with article 31, n. º 2 of the CP “the liability of legal persons or equivalent entities is excluded whenever the perpetrator has acted against express orders or instructions of whoever is legally entitled to give them” [our translation]. Therefore, and if one considers certain compliance programs to be actual sets of orders or instructions, given their specific characteristics and implementation, the violation of those policies may result in the exclusion of liability of the legal person for acts of corruption carried out by its workers, employees or any other person who has acted in the name and/or in representation of the corporate body.
Mozambique
Answer ... According to article 30, n. º 1 of the CP, legal persons are liable for the crimes committed by those who hold a managerial position in them or those under their authority, when acting in the company’s name and interest. Thus, a company charged with anti-corruption violations could, theoretically, in its defense, argue that the perpetrator of the crime was not acting in the company’s name and/or interest.
Furthermore, and as previously seen, liability may be excluded when the perpetrator acted against express orders or instructions of whoever was legally entitled to give them (article 31, n. º 2 of the CP). The same applies, according to article 5 of Law 9/87, to the company’s solidary liability in the payment of the penalties incurred in by its representatives and employees.
However, according to article 4 of the same law, those acting in the name and on behalf of others are presumed to be acting on instructions received, notwithstanding any personal liability they may incur. This means that a company wishing to defend itself of anti-corruption charges will have to prove its representatives did not act on given instructions.
Without excluding its liability, a legal person may also defend itself by claiming the existence of mitigating circumstances, listed in article 45 of the CP. Among these are previous good behaviour, the rendering of relevant services to society, spontaneous confession to the crime, and information on other perpetrators and instruments of the crime, when revealed to the authorities, useful and true.
Mozambique
Answer ... There are no pre-trial negotiation-based settlement mechanisms (equivalent or similar to plea bargaining) in Mozambique. However, and as mentioned in question 5.1, there are different leniency or penalty-mitigating mechanisms in place.
Mozambique
Answer ... The penalties imposed for violations of anti-corruption legislation are generally fines and imprisonment for individuals, and fines or judicial winding up for legal persons such as companies. Legal Persons will, however, only be subject to judicial winding up if the intention behind their creation was the commission of the crime, or if there are being used for that purpose by whoever runs them.
Note that, according to article 69 of the CP, non-imprisonment sentences are prohibited whenever the perpetrating individual has committed corruption or related crimes. Public officials convicted of corruption and sentenced to imprisonment for over 2 years shall also be removed from their office (article 440 of the CP).
Furthermore, the convicting sentence will be made visibly public, whether it regards a legal person or an individual (articles 448 and 89 of the CP). Both may also be subject to ancillary sanctions, such as rules of conduct for, respectively, 1 to 5 and 2 to 6 years.
Legal persons may also be subject to the exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid, disqualification from the practice of certain activities or prohibition to contract, or compulsory closure.
Lastly, all goods or values unlawfully received as a product of the crime at hand will be lost to the State, as defined by article 8 of Law 13/2020 (Special Legal Regime of Extended Asset Forfeiture and Recovery), and assets necessary to the compensation of damages to the State will be apprehended (as per article 6 of Law 9/87).
Mozambique
Answer ... According to article 155(3) of the CP, the statute of limitations is of 15 years, when the maximum sentence prescribed for the crime at hand exceeds 8 years of imprisonment, and of 5 years when the maximum sentence prescribed is of less than 8 years of imprisonment.
In Mozambican law, no corruption or corruption-related crime has a predicted maximum sentence of over 8 years. Most maximum sentences, are, in fact, equal to or under 5 years of imprisonment.
Therefore, and in accordance with article 155(3) of the CP, the statute of limitations on all corruption or corruption-related crimes is of 5 years.